Wednesday, July 27, 2011

At some point in the not-to-distant future, I plan to buy a new (or new to me) digital camera. This time I think I'm going to step up to a digital interchangeable lens camera (ILC). I have owned several digicams, but I've never been all that happy with the results. My Kodak in particular seems to make very bland JPEGs, and the mode/off dial is very frustrating.

The digital camera market has become even more confusing than it was the last time I embarked on a pre-purchase research project. Back then, "bridge cameras" were the Big New Thing. They are still around, as are digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras, but between those are two new categories - mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras (MILC, though for obvious reasons mirrorless system cameras (MSC) seems preferable) and single-lens translucent (SLT) cameras. Arguably, the categories could be combined into a single category called electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens (EVIL), as neither has an optical viewfinder. Cameras in the SLT category still have a mirror, but it is fixed and only the autofocus system uses the light coming off of it. Most passes through to the sensor, and a rear LCD screen or an electronic viewfinder is used for image composition. Cameras in the MSC category do away with the mirror altogether, and they don't incorporate a rangefinder-style optical viewfinder to replace it. There are a few high-end cameras made by Leica that operate like a classic rangefinder, but those have existed for a while, and aren't considered part of the new MSC category. They're also way too expensive for me. Digital medium format cameras all have interchangeable lenses, but they are very expensive and are used almost exclusively by professionals. Large format cameras have always been basically a kit of parts, and again are used almost exclusively by professionals.

I haven't made a final decision yet, but right now I'm leaning towards either a new Olympus PEN E-P3 or a used DSLR of some sort, preferably a Nikon D90 if I can find one cheap enough. I have a few Nikon/Nikkor lenses in the basement that I might be able to use with a Nikon body, but I marked that model because it has racked up the most sales in the segment. Below are some notes I made on the state of the ILC market right now.

Key acronyms - See the text above for details.

MSC - mirrorless system camera

SLT - single-lens transparent

SLR - single-lens reflex

Major manufacturers - The duopoly of Canikon/Nikanon dominates the digital ILC market. They were also the largest film SLR manufacturers before the switch to digital began. Sony entered the DSLR market first by essentially re-badging Konica Minolta products. It then purchased the product line, and has increased sales significantly since then. The items in parenthesis are the types of interchangeable lens cameras the companies make, and their 2010 ILC market shares.

Body styles and image composition methods - While there is no need for MSCs to have any particular form factor, nonetheless they basically fall into two categories - pseudo-rangefinders and pseudo-SLRs. The DSLR form-factor is still heavily defined by the mirror and eyepiece, even though there no longer is film behind the shutter.

Sensor types - Most image sensors use an internal layout developed by Kodak in the 1970s, and use one of two technologies for actually detecting photons. The latter are charge-couple device (CCD) and active pixel sensor (which are usually referred to as CMOS). Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the most relevant one for high-end cameras is the higher speed of CMOS sensors. There are variations in implementation of CMOS sensors between companies and over time, but the details are not all that important. The exception to the layout pattern is the Foveon sensor used by Sigma. It arranges the detectors into three different layers, which yields better color rendition according to the company, but at the price of lower resolution.

Sensor sizes - The sensor formats used in ILCs are much larger than in typical fixed-lens digital cameras, with one exception. As time goes on, the sensor vendors have been able to increase the pixel resolution for a given size, but the sizes in ILCs have remained fixed (roughly, there are small variations) because of the relationship between the sensor size and the lens.

Lenses - just like there is no point in buying a $1000 receiver and $400 pair of speakers, there's not much point in buying a $2000 body and nothing but one basic photographic lens. In both cases, the spending should be at least be balanced, if not tilted towards what might initially look like a less important item. Professional photographer and equipment reviewer Thom Hogan recommends a dedicated enthusiast have 5 lenses, (scroll down to July 22) with the most used one being of high quality. I think first-time DSLR purchaser would want two zooms - a 28-85mm and a 105-200mm - unless they already know that they have specific needs such as low-light or macro. Only after they find they are running up against the limits of their lens should they buy another. (Any focal lengths mentioned are 35mm-equivalent.)

Extension tube - mounts between a body and lens to decrease the focal length

Fast - a lens with a large maximum aperture, generally considered to be f/1.4 to f/2.8 depending on the type of lens, but exotic (read: expensive) lenses can be faster

Filter - allows only a certain portion of incoming light to pass through it; generally screws onto the end of the lens, but some lenses have a filter tray near the middle of the lens barrel

Fisheye - a lens with a very wide field of view and exaggerated distortion

Camera controls - The two main controls on manual film SLR cameras were aperture and shutter speed. Combined with the film speed, or sensitivity (as defined by an ISO standard), they determined if a shot could be taken, and allowed it to be manipulated. Digital cameras have added many new twists to those controls, and offer far more automation than even the last generation of film cameras introduced in the 1990s.

Features - Over time, camera manufacturers have added many features beyond standard camera controls. The latest craze is adding video recording capabilities that match those on video cameras. Oddly, in my mind at least, built-in time-lapse capability is not yet universal.

RAW - generic term for image file formats generated by cameras; saves more information than a JPEG, but at the price of file size, and must be processed into a JPEG with software

Comparisons - One of more time-consuming things to figure out is exactly what models are comparable to each other. I have made several mini-lists of models that are roughly equal in price and capability. The links lead to side-by-side comparisons at one of the better known camera review sites. The lists are not in any particular order.

And, finally, here is a list of cameras available as of July 2011. Naturally, there is a certain amount of conflicting information on the net. So some of the cameras in the list may no longer available from the manufacturer, and I've probably deleted a few that still are. Retailers will sometimes have products on their shelves long after the manufacturer has discontinued them. If you're desperate to buy a certain model as new, it still might be possible for months or even years after production has stopped. The list is sorted by the price with a basic zoom lens (if available) and then by the body only price (buyers in the higher price ranges will select their lenses separately). At the end are a few cameras that have been announced but don't have a "street" price yet. That will change within a couple of months, at most.

Pre-2006 comparisons - Camera bodies built before 2006 are mostly historical artifacts by now, though they can still take better (though not higher resolution) photos than most current point-and-shoot cameras because they have better lenses attached. Pre-2006 lenses are still perfectly good, though there may be some instances where a new camera doesn't support the lens' electronic features even if the mount is compatible.

Monday, July 25, 2011

This graph shows market share by brand home country (as opposed to country of manufacture). The Japanese share fell in April and May, probably because of the effects of the tsunami on supply chains in Japan.

In this graph the decline of the Japanese brands can be seen again. Despite the impact of the recession on the industry, the same five brands still dominate sales.

Thank FSM it's over. Ever since the Challenger disaster, and even more so after the Columbia disaster, I gritted my teeth during each flight. The STS program ended up being the most deadly manned program in history (not counting related on-the-ground accidents), killing 14 astronauts, vs. 4 during the entire course of the Soviet Union/Russian program.

It was a Frankenstein. I don't know the history of how the program evolved, so I don't know if the Shuttle could have been designed better. But the additional weight of a man-rated reusable vehicle made launches of satellites and robotic missions much more expensive. The Shuttle was approximately three times heavier than its payload capacity.

Ease up on the jingoism. The pride element of objecting to using a Russian rocket is silly. They have a reliable launch vehicle and space capsule, so it makes sense to use it now that there is no requirement to launch large ISS components.

Crowds are no fun. Money is always an issue, and the extraordinary expense of the STS and ISS probably crowded out a lot of more rewarding robotic missions. The caveat is necessary because there is no way of knowing if any of the money spent on the manned missions over the past three decades would have been spent otherwise, but I think it's likely that a good portion of it would have been.

It ain't over 'til its over. Space is still out there, and there are incredible things yet to discover. The gee-wiz factor of putting men into space is gone, at least for the time being. But robotic mission can yield fantastic results, as programs like Voyager,Hubble, and the Mars Rovers have shown. There's no reason to equate the end of the Shuttle program with the end of space exploration.

So what should NASA be doing in the near future? This is how I see it:

Minimal support of the ISS. Because it is an international program, keeping the ISS alive is necessary for political reasons. But the US should do no more that meet its obligations.

Minimal development of COTS capsules. Currently, three different unmanned supply vehicles are available to take cargo and fuel to the ISS: the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress vehicle. They have completed 2, 2, and 46 trips respectively. Since there is no immediate need, NASA should provide limited funding to American companies for developing similar capabilities, or manned capsules.

General spaceflight research and development. This would be NASA's slush fund for interesting but not immediately applicable technology development. One specific goal I would recommend is to find a way to capture and de-orbit space debris.

Aeronautics research and development. The first "A" in NASA is usually an afterthought. But given how important air travel and freight are, some effort should be put into research applicable to atmospheric vehicles. The emphasis should be on fuel efficiency.

Robotic exploration. This should be the main focus of NASA for the next decade. While there have been mishaps, the list of successful missions is much, much larger. The missions can be divided into three categories

Solar system exploration. This includes missions to planets or other bodies, and Sol observation. Dawn and SOHO are two such missions.

Earth observation. Any mission to observe the Earth not undertaken by NOAA or the military falls here. The Aqua/Terra satellites comprise one notable program.

Astronomy and physics. The Hubble is the most famous example of this type of mission, but there are many others. The James Webb Space Telescope is the next big one scheduled for launch, but it may be canceled due to budget cuts.

Heavy lift development. This is admittedly the most dubious item in the list. As of 2011, the Atlas V HLV is the largest available launch vehicle, with a claimed capacity to LEO of 29,000kg. In contrast, the Saturn V was able to launch 118,000kg into orbit. The STS was able to launch as much as 109,000kg to LEO, but most of that was the Shuttle itself. There has been talk for years about developing an unmanned launch vehicle from the STS components, and NASA appears to be on the verge of announcing they intend to do just that. But no one has identified a need to lob anything that weighs 70,000kg or more into orbit, either right now or in the foreseeable future. So there are reasons for putting the program on hold. To me, there are two arguments for the program. One is that nobody else is likely to do it. Other space agencies and various commercial organizations have slowly raised the capacity of their systems over the years. But a much bigger rocket would have to be designed from scratch, and I think it's unlikely that anyone but the Chinese government would be willing to make such a huge and largely speculative investment. The other is that most of the components are already available in the US from the existing Shuttle infrastructure. They would have to be re-integrated after a new fairing system is designed, and then tested. But if NASA plans and executes wisely, it should be able to have the new system ready in less than a decade and for a reasonable-ish cost (leaving aside the issue that it is pointless right now).

No discussion about NASA is really complete without noting that it still receives indirect support from the Department of Defense. The two programs are largely separate, but they often use the same contractors and the same launch vehicles, which reduces NASA's costs over being the sole customer government customer. Occasionally there is some direct cooperation, though its nothing like what took place in the 1960s. In addition, NOAA is in charge of a satellite fleet, but they are purchased, not built in-house, and are launched on commercial rockets.

I would say that like America, Italy's problems are mostly politi-cultural. But that doesn't mean that market forces can't force a crisis. Italy is a relatively populous country, and its bond float isn't trivial. But it doesn't necessarily take that much money to move markets. So the "crisis" is likely to continue as long as bond traders are able to exploit the market for personal gain at the expense of taxpayers.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

It's been a while since I've looked at auto sales. As should be expected for a number of reasons - a weak economy, the end of housing-bubble induced wealth effect, and perhaps even a slight trend away from driving - sales haven't recovered to their pre-recession levels. The spike caused by the Cash for Clunkers program is pretty obvious.
But the falloff in the first months after the program ended was less than I
expected.

The data for registration lags by over a year, so it's too soon to tell if the downtick in registered vehicles is actually a trend. But this article from a few months ago suggests that the number of cars on the road has continued to decline.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Most Americans probably don't realize that the newspaper ecosystem in the United Kingdom is quite a bit different than in the US. Except for the specialist-oriented Wall Street Journal and the McPaper, US newspapers are tied to a city or metropolitan region. In much smaller England, the national newspapers (which are all based in London) dominate. These are divided into three separate groups according to their perceived level of journalistic standards: quality, mid-market, and tabloid. Something else for Americans to note is an odd tradition (to this American) of having a mostly separate staff for the Sunday edition of the papers, most of which also have different names. In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, most of the English national papers run regional versions, and there are also a few regionally significant papers. Here's a rundown of the national titles ordered by circulation as of March 2011 (or Sunday circulation where appropriate).

Note 2011.07.15: A lot of people consider the now-defunct News of the World as the Sunday edition of The Sun. I've kept NotW separate because it is being wound up (or down), and the staff let go instead of being moved to The Sun.

Update 2011.07.15: Added the Morning Star, which is national but very small.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

ATHENS (Reuters) - A deeper-than-expected recession caused Greece's
central government deficit to widen by almost one third in the first
half of the year, widely missing an interim budget target under the
country's bailout plan, the finance ministry said on Monday.

...

Hurt by austerity, the Greek economy contracted at an annual pace of 5.5
percent in the first quarter. The Greek government revised downwards
its 2011 growth forecast for this year to 3.9 percent.

Hoo-boy, another nobody-could-have-predicted moment. Of course, it's not. The Greek economy is going to contract until the cutting is stopped, or until it re-adopts its own currency.

Monday, July 4, 2011

This little project didn't work out for me. After replacing all of the caps, the inverter board still wouldn't work. I could hear it clicking slowly (about once per second), but without a schematic I had no way of figuring out what was still wrong. So I ordered a replacement off of eBay. It has the same output specs but a different layout, so I couldn't compare the old one to it. The new board has been working just fine so far. The old one has gone off the great electronics recycling facility in the sky. Or is it in central China?

Disclaimer

Nothing on this site should be construed as financial, legal, or romantic advice. Nothing on this site should be considered an offer to buy or sell equities, securities, real estate, gl0d, baseball cards, or narcotics. Thank you, please drive through.